C. The Invention

1. Description

Joseph Newman described embodiments of his device consisting of "a
relatively heavy coil made up of relatively large diameter wire of
relatively greater length and number of loops and length and a relatively
small energizing current to drive a rotatable permanent magnet."

Dr. Hastings testified that "the essential feature" of Joseph Newman's
motors is that "the length of wire (of the coil) should be extremely
long."****

Joseph Newman's patent application included drawings (figures 5 and 6)
that illustrated a battery-driven motor with generating coils and each
figure was distinguished from the other in only one respect: in figure 5
the motor rotary was outside the primary coil; in figure 6 the motor rotary
was inside the coil.

As for the secondary coil, Joseph Newman stated that his invention "can
be made without using [the secondary] coil.

[****Note: Joseph Newman disclosed one prototype in his application that
was powered by a 1.5 volt D.C. battery using a magnet and a coil of 15
gauge wire that had so many turns that it weighed about 90 pounds and ran
at high speeds for 12 hours without running down. (While operating, the
battery would become over-charged.)]

While the figures show a D.C. battery as a power source, Joseph Newman's
application stated that "alternating current can be used..."

The motor rotary in both figures consists of a permanent magnet mounted
on a shaft with a commutator.

When the battery (or power supply) produces D.C. current, the shaft of
the rotary magnet turns as does the commutator. As the commutator rotates,
the brushes on the commutator alternately contact positive and negative
voltage from the battery. Direction is thus reversed very half-turn (180
degrees) by the commutator. [Note: commutator innovations have been
developed in the later prototype models.]

On some commutators Joseph Newman (JN) designed, he used an interrupt to
speed up the switching time of the coil.

Reversing the current direction every half-turn keeps the motor rotating
in the same direction, that is, it maintains "a positive torque."

As already noted, both figures have a rotary and a coil with the rotary
inside or outside of the primary coil but, in either case, "when a magnet
[the rotor] is moved in the vicinity of ... [the] coil of wire, current
will flow in that [coil of] wire."

As Dr. Hastings testified, "The magnetic field created by putting
current into the coil extends all throughout space, and so at any point in
space there's going to be a magnetic field that changes directin every 180
degrees."

There is therefore no conceptual or physical difference between figures
5 and 6. Indeed, in the case of figure 5, if one disregards the windings,
one has "what's commonly referred to as an electric motor."

Dr. Hastings explained how JN's device obtained more energy out than
required to run it:

"When current flows through the motor there is a torque exerted
in the rotor and then, in return, the rotor induces a back current
or an opposing current in the coil."

Dr. Hastings concluded when "the reaction of the rotor on the coil is
smaller than the force that drove the rotor." then there is "more output
power than input power."

The force that drives the motor is the product of the current (I) and
the voltage (V) at the battery and it is calculated by multiplying current
times voltage at every point in time and taking the average over a cycle of
operation of the motor.

In reference to figures 5 and 6, the output is the mechanical work that
might be "taken off the shaft or through the pulley; the "electrical power
generated in the load resistor" in the coil in figures 5 and 6; the "heat
generated in the coil"; and the "frictional heat generated in the
bearings."

In reliance on Plaintiff's Patent Application*****, Dr. Hastings
described a phenomenological model of JN's device:

"You close the switch and current flows [from the battery (or power
supply)] into the coil and basically fills the coil up, and now,
just when it [the current] gets to the other end [of the coil], you
open the switch [the commutator] and the current all comes out at
once in this giant [back] spike [of current], and when it does that,
it puts a big --- like a karate chop, a very large torque on the
rotor. The rotor accelerates and then --- because there is a ...
time lag associated with these things ---it [the rotor] accelerates
and then it creates a reaction field [magnetic] that propagates [as
current] out to the wire. But by the time it [the current] gets
there [to the end of the coil], the switch is already open and it
can't react on the current flow in the wire."

[*****Note: As Patent Examiner Donovan F. Duggan rejected Joseph Newman's
original 14 claims, Joseph Newman substituted 29 more claims (claims 15 to
43) describing his method and embodiments including those prototypes
corresponding to figures 5 and 6; he described figures 5 and 6 in claim 29
as a "method of increasing the availability of usable electrical energy or
usable motion, or both" comprising the steps:

a) providing a magnetic device for producing usable electrical energy or
usable motion, which device includes a material through which electrical
current can interact producing a magnetic field which interacts with a
separate mass having a magnetic field, and further providing a source of
electrical energy such as, for example, a battery, generator, or any other;
b) providing a complete electrical circuit between said magnetic field
device
and said source of electrical energy and producing from said source to said
device an alternating electrical current potential; and
c) retarding the flow of current through said device back to said source to
the greatest extent practical, producing a relatively small and preferably
negligible current flow through said source and resulting in electrical
energy output, or usable motion output, being a greater energy output than
energy input into the device.

Plaintiff Newman's CLAIM 30 provides that the means to obtain step (c)
of claim 29 was to have a "relatively large coil or coils of wire having a
relatively large number of turns of wire of a relatively large diameter and
a relatively great length; CLAIM 31 provides that "the electric current is
retained within at least one member outside of the source of said original
electric current" in order to produce a "continuous electromagnetic
motion;" CLAIM 32 provides that "a separate magnetic force" is used so that
"it's magnetic lines of force" avoid "a braking effect;" CLAIM 33 provides
that the material in claim 29, step (a), is "a super conducting material"
and "said separate magnetic mass is at least equivalent to a cyrogenic
magnet;" CLAIM 36 provides that the material mass allows for fast alignment
"without the delay, or conventional degree of hysteresis losses normally
associated with conventional iron alignment."]

Thus did Plaintiff describe how his device produced as output energy:
(a) mechanical work, (b) mechanical friction, (c) ohmic heating, and (d)
electrical energy that were together many times larger than the battery
input energy.